Power Point presentation

Usury and Calvinism in Protestant
England from the Sixteenth Century
to the Industrial Revolution
John Munro
University of Toronto
4 February 2013
Did Usury Ever Matter?
• Usury ‘belongs less to economic history than
to the history of ideas’.
• Charles Kindleberger, A Financial History of
Western Europe (London: 1984), p. 41.
• In my view, Kindleberger is dead wrong:
usury has always ‘mattered’ in much or most
of the world from ancient to modern times,
both East and West
The Usury Problem in Reformation
Europe
• One of the many enduring myths on the usury ban: that it
ceased to be observed in Reformation Europe
• The medieval and Catholic ecclesiastical usury doctrine:
ban against demanding any payment beyond the principal
in a loan (mutuum): of money or other fungibles
• N.B. Such a ban never applied to licit investment returns:
• - rent: for use of real estate, other physical property
• - profits: from investments in any enterprise
• For Protestant England in the 16th century, three major
studies have emphasized instead how the early Reformers
endorsed and maintained the long-held Scholastic views
Major studies on usury in Protestant
England, ca. 1540 - 1640
• (1) Richard Tawney, Preface to his edition of Thomas
Wilson, A Discourse on Usury [1572], published in 1926
• and his Religion and The Rise of Capitalism (1926)
• (2) Norman Jones, God and the Moneylenders: Usury
and Law in Early Modern England (1989)
• (3) Eric Kerridge, Usury, Interest, and the Reformation
(2002).
• - states that ‘the Protestant reformers were all
substantially orthodox concerning usury and interest’,
• - that ‘the Reformation made no real substantial
changes to fundamental Christian teachings about
usury ... or remedies for it, or laws against it’.
The evolution of the Christian usury
doctrines: Bible & early Christianity
• (1) Evolution of usury doctrine: as sin against
charity  sin against commutative justice  sin
against Natural Law (against God Himself)
• (2) Biblical texts: usury as a sin against charity
• - Old Testament (Pentateuch): Exodus 22:25,
Leviticus 25: 35-37; Deuteronomy 23: 19-20
• - Old Testament: Ezekiel 18.13 (ca. 580 BCE): He
who ‘hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken
increase: shall he live? He shall not live – he shall
surely die.’ Thus: usury as theft, as a mortal sin.
The evolution of the Christian usury
doctrines: Bible & early Christianity
• (2) Biblical Texts: New Testament, Luke 6:35:
‘lend freely, hoping for nothing again’
• (3) St. Ambrose of Milan (339-97 CE): citing
Ezekiel: ‘If someone takes usury, he commits
violent robbery (rapina); and he shall not live.’
• - Later incorporated into Gratian’s Decretum
(canon law): ca. 1135
• (4) Council of Nicea: 325 CE: usury as a sin
against charity, applied only to the clergy
• (5) Carolingian Church Councils: usury ban
applied to all lay persons
Evolution of the Scholastic Usury
Doctrine (1)
• (1) Gratian’s Decretum (concordance of canon law): 1130 1140 : incorporated as well provisions of the Justinian
Code (528-542) on the Roman law concept of the loan as a
mutuum: ‘what was thine becomes mine’.
• - basic principle: a loan transfers ownership of any
money (or other fungible commodity) from the borrower
to the lender, who has sole rights to its benefits;
• - hence usury is theft
• - other investment returns, rents and profits, were (as
noted) always perfectly licit: because the investor retained
equity ownership of his invested capital
Evolution of the Scholastic Usury
Doctrine (2)
• (2) Roman Church councils of Lateran III
(1179) and IV (1215): harsh penalties for all
usurers – excommunication
• (3) Usury is a violation of commutative
justice: equality in exchange: in that the
lender gains more than the borrower, and
steals from the borrower.
Evolution of the Scholastic Usury
Doctrine (3)
• (4) 13th-century Scholastic interpretations of reintroduced texts of Aristotle (384-322 BCE) from
Muslim Spain : Nichomachean Ethics (1247, 1260);
Politics (1260):
• a) that money has only one natural use: as a medium
of exchange
• b) thus money is inherently sterile: ‘cannot breed’
• c) to lend money at interest is a violation of Natural
Law: the most heinous sin against God
• (5) Also: ‘Usury is Theft of Time, belonging only to
God’
The canonical extrinsic titles:
loopholes?
• (1) In accordance with principles of commutative justice,
canon lawyers permitted the lender to claim compensation
if he suffered subsequent loss because of his loans:
• a) Mora, or Poena detentori: fines for late payment,
beyond stipulated redemption date.
• b) Damnum emergens: compensation for the lender’s
unanticipated capital losses suffered from fire, theft, war,
storms, etc., but only after having made the loan
• (2) Lucrum cessans: a rejected title (before 16th cent)
• - a lender’s opportunity cost: in not being able to invest
those funds licitly in a rent- or profit-producing asset.
• - almost all Scholastics and Protestant Reformers rejected
this title, because it would mean pre-determined interest
Refutation of the Usury Myths
• (1) Abhorrence of usury was not just Christian: predated
Christianity, and found in much of the non-Christian world
to modern times: especially in Islamic societies (rib )
• (2) Usury applied to all loans: not just charitable loans
• (3) Usury did not mean extortionate interest, but all/any
interest: anything beyond the principal of a loan
• (4) The Extrinsic Titles in canon law were not ‘loopholes’:
but legitimate claims to compensation for a lender’s loss
that took place only after the loan was in effect
• (5) Irrelevant that prosecutions were chiefly for ‘flagrant
usurers’ and that interest was easily hidden in a loan:
• usury could never be hidden from God (in a society with
few atheists -- few who did not fear fires of Hell)
The costs of the usury doctrine: high
interest rates
• Lawrence Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 15581641 (Oxford, 1965): on Elizabethan & Stuart England
• ‘Money will never become freely or cheaply available
in a society which nourishes a strong moral prejudice
against the taking of any interest at all – as distinct
from objections to the taking of extortionate interest.’
• ‘If usury on any terms, however reasonable, is
thought to be a discreditable business, men will tend
to shun it, and the few who practise it will demand a
high return for being generally regarded as moral
lepers.’
• [Also: risks of prosecution for defaulting debtors]
The early Protestant Reformers: the
usury doctrine
(1) Kerridge, Jones, Tawney, etc., were largely correct in
asserting that the Protestant Reformers fully
endorsed the Scholastic views: e.g., Luther,
Melanchthon, Zwingli [read the texts in the paper]
(2) Tawney: that Protestant preachers were unceasing in
condemning the ‘soul-corrupting’ taint of usury up
the Civil War & Commonwealth era (1642-60).
(3) Jean Calvin (1509-64): Institutes of the Christian
Religion (1536):
- Kerridge: ‘Calvin had little to say that was both new
and significant’
- completely untrue: Calvin was a major innovator
Calvin on usury 1: ambiguities
• (1) Calvin DID permit interest payments, but only on
commercial loans: ‘I do not consider that usury be
forbidden amongst us, except that it be repugnant to
justice and charity’.
• (2) Restrictive conditions: on charging interest
• a) that usury never be demanded on any charitable
loans
• b) that the borrower must gain as much as the lender
• c) that lending be to the greater good of the
Commonwealth
• d) that interest rates not exceed any maximum rates
established by civil society (in 16th century: see later)
Calvin on usury 2: ambiguities
• 3) Ambiguity in Institutes (1536): ‘it is a very
rare thing for a man to be honest and at the
same time a usurer’;
• - Calvin advocated expulsion of all habitual
usurers from the Church
• 4) Roger Fenton (1612), an English Puritan
‘Divine’ (preacher): ‘Calvin dealt with usury as
the apothecarie doth with poyson’.
Jean Calvin (1509-64)
16th- century legislation permitting
interest payments: Calvin’s influence?
• 1) 4 Oct. 1540: Emperor Charles V’s ordinance for the
Habsburg Netherlands (Low Countries):
• - permitted interest payments, but only on commercial
loans, up to 12%
• - anything beyond that was usury (woekerie; Ger: Wucher)
• 2) 1545: Parliament of Henry VIII: permitted interest
payments on all loans up to 10%  usury was above 10%
• 3) 1552: Parliament of Edward VI (with radical Protestants)
revoked this statute: ‘Forasmuche as Usurie is by the worde
of God utterly prohibited, as a vyce moste odyous and
destestable’
• 4) 1571: Parliament of Elizabeth I: restored her father’s
statute, with the same 10% limitation on interest
Subsequent reduction in maximum
English interest rates 1
• (1) 10% limit in the 1571 statute, as in Henry VIII’s
law:
• - taken as both the minimum & maximum interest
rate
• – 1571 statute implies that Edward VI’s 1552 anti-usury
statute, prohibiting all usury, had led to higher interest
rates
• (2) Early 17th century: Parliamentarians and
merchants petitioned for lower maximum interest
rates,
• - in order to foster commerce and agriculture
• - arguments were all economic, no longer religious
Subsequent reduction in
maximum English interest rates2
• (3) Parliament: subsequent reductions in
maximum interest rates:
• - 1624: to 8% (James I)
• - 1651: to 6% (Cromwell’s Protectorate);
• - 1660-61: ratified by Parliament of Charles II
• - 1713: to 5% (Anne): to 1853/54
• (4) 1854: abolition of the usury laws by
Parliament of Queen Victoria
Economic Consequences of the Usury
Legislation: 1540 - 1713
• (1) Significant reductions in market rates of
interest – 16th to 18th century: evidence from the
Low Countries & England: from 30% to 8% to 5%
•  reduced the costs of capital formation
•  greater commercial & economic expansion
• (2) bills of exchange: introduction and spread of
discounting  negotiability (with endorsement)
• (3) Government finances: shift from loans
(bonds) to annuities (rentes) for public finances
Discounting Bills of Exchange (1)
• (1) Medieval bills of exchange: allowed
merchants to include or ‘disguise’ interest
charges within exchange rates• BUT not usurious in eyes of Church: not loans,
but licit purchases of foreign bank balances, with
uncertain returns (i.e., future rates on the
recambium or return bills);
• only ‘dry exchange’ was usurious: fixing both
rates at the outset, when both bills ‘drawn’
together
Discounting Bills of Exchange (2)
• (2) Medieval usury ban, however, made bills
non-negotiable  so that bills had to be held
until maturity (though they could be
transferred at maturity face-value)
• (3) Discounting: essence of negotiability: i.e.,
selling a bill for cash or goods before due date
and necessarily at a discount
• - Discount  would have revealed implicit
interest in the contract.
Discounting Bills of Exchange (3)
• (4) Law merchant courts in England (1437)
and Low Countries (1506) provided legal
enforcement of payment claims for third
parties to whom negotiable bills had been
transferred (as bearer or endorsed bills).
• (5) Habsburg Netherlands: imperial edicts of
1537, 1541: to protect same full legal rights of
3rd parties throughout the Low Countries
Discounting Bills of Exchange (4)
• (6) Introduction and spread of discounting,
with full negotiability, via bearer bills or
endorsement: from mid to late 16th & 17th
centuries.
• (7) Evidence from the Low Countries and
England: that discounting & endorsement
spread and became widely accepted only
after legislation had permitted interest
payments (as noted before).
Discounting Bills of Exchange (5)
• (8) Importance of discounting for the British
Industrial Revolution era: ca. 1760 - 1830
• a) primary role of English & Scottish banks: in
discounting foreign, domestic (‘inland’) bills and
promissory notes  provided most of the
working capital needs of industry and commerce
• b) discounting ‘acceptance’ bills (name for bills
of exchange from the 17th century): primary
mechanism for financing foreign trade to the
present day  key to global economic growth
International Acceptance Banking by British and Continental Banks in 1900 and 1913 in Millions of Pounds Sterling
Source: Stanley Chapman, The Rise of Merchant Banking (London, 1984), Table 7.2, p. 121.
Name of the Bank
Date
Founded
1900: Acceptances in
£ millions
1913: Acceptances in
£ millions
London Merchant Banks:
* German origin + Dutch origin
++ US origin
Kleinwort, Sons & Co.*
1796
8.2
13.6
J. Henry Schröder & Co.*
1815
5.9
11.6
Baring Bros & Co. Ltd.+
1763
3.9
6.6
Brown, Shipley & Co.++
1805
n.d.
5.1
W. Brandt's Sons & Co.*
1805
1.2
3.3
N.M. Rothschild & Sons *
1798
1.5
3.2
C.J. Hambro & Son*
1800
1.9
3.0
London Country & Westminster
1834
0.2
7.8
Union of London & Smiths Bank
1839
3.1
5.8
Parr's Bank
1865
2.4
5.4
London Joint Stock Bank
1836
1.4
3.2
Manchester & Liverpool District
1829
1.7
2.7
Glyn, Mills, and Co.
1753
1.2
1.4
Dresdner Bank
1872
6.1
14.4
Discontogesellschaft
1851
3.0
12.5
Crédit Lyonnais
1863
0.0
5.7
Russian Bank of Foreign Trade
1871
2.2
3.7
Credito Italiano
1870
n.d.
1.9
British Joint Stock Banks
Continental Banks
The ‘Financial Revolution’: Rentes or
annuities for state finances
• 1) English Financial Revolution: following the
Glorious Revolution of 1688:
• Parliament deposed Catholic James II, replacing
him with his daughter Mary (II) & her husband,
the Dutch Calvinist prince William III
•  his officials imported Dutch financial system
• 2) Permanent funded national debt based on
the sale of perpetual annuities (rentes): instead
of interest-bearing bonds: from 1693 to 1757
• 3) Thus immune to the current usury legislation
with falling maximum interest rates, 1624-1713
Medieval Origins of the Financial
Revolution: Rentes 1
• (1) Early 13th century: vigorous revival &
intensification of the anti-usury campaign: conducted
by Franciscans & Dominicans (new mendicant
preaching orders)  veritable ‘reign of terror’
• (2) Many merchants and town governments in
northern France and Flanders, fearing for their mortal
souls, refused to engage in usurious loans
•  instead chose to finance towns governments by
sale/purchase of rentes (annuities)  provoked
opposition from theologians as a ‘cloak for usury’.
Medieval Origins of the Financial
Revolution: Rentes 2
• (3) Pope Innocent IV: 1250: ruled that no usury
was involved, since those buying annuities could
never demand redemption, as in ‘mutuum’ loan
• - were merely buying future income-streams
• - but the issuers (sellers) could redeem them
• (4) Theological disputes ended in 15th century
with three papal bulls upholding views of
Innocent IV: especially on redemptions
• at par nominal values, by the state or issuer only
The Financial Revolution and the
British Industrial Revolution (1)
• (1) By 16th century, sales of life- and perpetualrentes had become the mainstay of public
finances in most of Western Europe, with these
typical rates of return:
• (a) Life-Rents: 12.50% (= 1/8)
• (b) Perpetual Rents: 6.25% (= 1/16)
• - compare these rates with far higher interest
rates on actual loans, often as much as 25% or
more
• - France: 1631-57: mean rate of 25.88% on shortterm state loans
The Financial Revolution and the
British Industrial Revolution (2)
• (2) State finances based on rentes most
highly evolved in the 16th-century Habsburg
Netherlands (& Spain)  adopted by the
new Dutch Republic (from 1580s) 
transmitted to England after Glorious
Revolution of 1688
• (3) Chief English difference: from 1720, based
entirely on perpetual & negotiable annuities
(vs. the more common Dutch life-annuities)
The Financial Revolution and the
British Industrial Revolution (3)
• (4) Reduced cost of English state borrowing:
• - from 14% in 1693: with Million Pound Loan
(a lifetime annuity)
• - to 3% in 1757, with completion of Pelham’s
Conversion of the entire national debt, begun
in 1749,
• into the Consolidated Stock of the Nation =
‘Consols’ (2.75% from 1888; and 2.50% from
1903, to the present day: on the LSE).
The Financial Revolution and the
British Industrial Revolution (4)
• (4) Importance in fall of government interest
rates:
• - allowed Great Britain to finance both ‘guns
and butter’ with its many 18th-century wars
(to 1815)
•  reduced or eliminated ‘crowding out’
effects, so that private capital investments
were not impeded
The Financial Revolution and the
British Industrial Revolution (5)
• (5) Importance of Consols as the prime
negotiable financial instrument: trading on
the Amsterdam Beurs and the London Stock
Exchange
• - became a universally popular investment
and as such the chief form of collateral along with land, for long-term loans to finance
fixed capital formation
The Financial Revolution and the
British Industrial Revolution (6)
• (6) Evolution of legal and financial institutions for fullfledged, legally enforced negotiability, to protect
property rights of third parties claiming financial
assets:
• - also vitally important, but a separate story (the same
also for stock exchanges)
• (7) These legal-institutional factors providing full
negotiability, along with discounting & endorsement,
and state-financing with annuities:
• constituted a veritable financial revolution that
helped make possible the British Industrial Revolution,
from the 1760s.
Significance: comparison with
early modern Islamic World - 1
• 1) The two most important financial
innovations that the medieval Christian west
created for the modern world were:
• A) the Bill of Exchange  modern acceptance
bill for financing international trade
• B) the ‘rente’ contract  life and perpetual
annuities for government finance (chiefly to
finance warfare)
Significance: comparison with
early modern Islamic World 2
• 2) Both may be seen as mechanisms for evading
or circumventing the USURY doctrine
• a) bill of exchange:
• i) only in part designed for that purpose: by
disguising interest in exchange rates
• ii) but also served as a mechanism to avoid
losses in shipping precious meals abroad:
• - to evade national bans on bullion exports
• - to avoid high risks not only of confiscation but
also losses to brigands, pirates, ship-wrecks
Significance: comparison with
early modern Islamic World 3
• 2) Both may be seen as mechanisms for
evading or circumventing the USURY doctrine
• b) Rente contracts or annuities: much more
definitely devised to evade usury doctrine –
• (i) to provide alternative mechanism for gov’t
finance, i.e., alternative to interest-bearing
loans
• (ii) came to dominate European public
finance from 15th to early 20th centuries
Significance: comparison with
late-medieval Islamic World - 3
• 3) Neither financial instrument was found in the
medieval/early-modern Islamic worlds:
• a) suftajah: much earlier Arab contract that
seems to resemble bill of exchange
• - but did NOT involve any exchange of currencies
(all in gold dinars)  hence no exchange rates
within which to hide interest charges
• - monetary unity of Islamic Mediterranan world
• - never widely used in Islamic commerce
• - mainly used to transfer gov’t sums abroad
Significance: comparison with
early modern Islamic World - 4
• b) no known Islamic counterpart to the rente
contracts or annuities in gov’t finance
c) Ottoman Empire: Constantinople
- not until the 18th century did it adopt this
form of public finance, copying the European
system of annuities
Appendix:
Aristotle on Usury: ‘Politics’
• The most hated sort [of money-making], and
with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a
gain out of money itself, and not from the natural
use of it. For money was intended to be used in
exchange, but not to increase at interest.
• And this term usury [τόκος], which means the
birth of money from money, is applied to the
breeding of money because the offspring
resembles the parent. Whereof of all modes of
making money this is the most unnatural.
St. Thomas Aquinas on Fungibles
and the Usury Doctrine (1)
• (1) fungible:
• - a commodity that can be replaced by any other identical commodity:
non-differentiated: e.g., paper clips (or sheaves of wheat, flagons of wine
& oil)
• coins: gold and silver: undifferentiated by denomination, so that one
replaced by another, i.e., as a fungible
• ‘consumption in use fungibles’: any such fungible commodity is
necessarily consumed in its use and can thus be replaced only by an exact
replica:
• (2) non-fungibles:
• - commodities with individual defining characteristics, which are also
not consumed in their use:
• e.g., a piece of land, a house, a barn, a horse, ox, a plough
St. Thomas Aquinas on Fungibles
and the Usury Doctrine (2)
• (3) Aquinas: distinction between loan of fungibles
and non-fungibles.
• (a) a loan of a fungible is to be repaid in the exact
same amount (quantity) of other but the same
identical replacement (replica) commodity,
• (b) but a non-fungible is to be returned, as the very
same commodity: for which a rent may be charged for
the use of that commodity, and for deterioration
• (4) this concept has the same intellectual foundation
as the ‘transfer of ownership’ concept, which applies
only to a mutuum – and thus not to property rentals (in
which ownership is not transferred
Dilbert on Fungibles
Usury in Islam
• Muhammad (d. 632 CE): deeply influenced by
Old Testament texts on usury
• - Koran (Qu’ran): similarly forbade all interest:
usury = rib , meaning ‘excess’:
• many Koranic texts similar to later Christian texts
• Sura 2 - Al-Baqara (MADINA) : Verse 276:
• ‘Allâh will destroy Ribâ [usury] and will give
increase for Sadaqât [deeds of charity, alms, etc.]
And Allâh likes not the disbelievers, sinners’